Hacker News Reader

Comment by nostromo | Hacker News Reader

Facebook isn't so dumb that they haven't seen YouTube as Google's trojan horse for a long time. Facebook has had a video platform since 2007 -- it just hasn't taken off.

> I miss the days when Google, Apple, and Facebook cooperated rather than squabbled.

I don't; competition is good.

View on HN

If by competition you mean the walled data silos each company builds in order to prevent users from leaving their platform, I would much rather prefer cooperation.

It's funny to think that Google Video didn't take off, and Google had to buy YouTube. Now YouTube is not available for purchase by Facebook. This is interested with the instagram purchase.

You're being downvoted but you're exactly right. As long as Instagram hung out there floating in the breeze, anyone could become a major photo-sharing player, just as Google did by acquiring YouTube.

By purchasing Instagram, Facebook prevented themselves from being edged out in photos the way Google is shouldering them out in video sharing.

I don't agree: Facebook can just make something that's almost exactly like YouTube. Seems like a no-brainer investment for facebook.

But with Instagram, they wanted the name-brand.

Google tried that, they made Google Video. They're also trying to make something like Facebook (Google Plus), hasn't taken off so well. If Google can't make Google Video work, what makes you think Facebook Video will work?

Google Video didn't take off because of branding failure. Google is not something that people contribute to; it aggregates things that are already out there. Google Video was perceived as a search engine for video, not as a user-content site.

So instead of simply correcting that failure, Google paid $1.6 billion for something it already had.

Competition is good. Entering totally unrelated markets you're unsuited for is stupid.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com